Impeach Obama for bribery? Anti-ACTA spin reaches new lows

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is misguided, but often not for …

Given easy access to the Internet, the source of so much information, one might expect that Internet activists would be the best informed on the facts. But the continuing recent debate over the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) reminds us that, even in the Internet age, truth is a quick casualty of war.

SOPA-style site takedowns

We already debunked the idea that ACTA demands ISPs to monitor their users for copyright infringement. But a similar claim has been widely repeated: ACTA is basically SOPA in that it envisions takedowns of specific websites.

As a recent DailyTech article put it, "Say a foreign business wants to get rid of its American e-commerce portal rival. It could simply masquerade as a reviewer and post a link to infringed content (e.g. a torrent on The Pirate Bay) and then turn around and request a takedown. Bam! The successful American firm would be out of the picture, at least until it could prove its innocence weeks later after millions in lost business."

This has so little basis in the actual ACTA text it's hard to know what to say. It's simply fantasy. Nothing in ACTA asks any signatory to allow takedowns of entire websites, in other countries, based simply on a letter, and because of something like a single user-submitted link to infringing content. (ACTA footnote 13 expressly allows countries to provide "safe harbors" to Internet-based operators.)

ACTA does require countries to provide for judicial injunctions to stop piracy, but such injunctions have been hallmarks of the European and US law for an extremely long time. However, as with most parts of ACTA, the language is extremely broad and certainly doesn't require anything like the doomsday scenarios envisioned above.

Impeach Obama?

Yes, President Obama is responsible for overseeing the ACTA signing and allowing the process to continue. But ACTA began under President Bush, whose US Trade Representative (USTR) helped craft the ACTA approach. The agreement is more a product of the terrific power of copyright holders, especially at places like USTR, and an excellent example of their multiple-front fight for ever-tougher enforcement. They fight in Congress, in the Executive branch, through the courts, and internationally; shut down something like SOPA and you'll find the groundwork already laid elsewhere for things like ACTA.

Given this reality, statements like this one from DailyTech, border on the unhinged (see if you can find the bonus Nazi allusion in the piece):

Under such a common sense principle, President Obama appears to have accepted a bribe to violate the US Constitution and the highest political office [by signing ACTA], thus he should be impeached under this definition.

This is in reference to an administration routinely criticized for being too close to Google and which Hollywood is publicly threatening over the White House refusal to back SOPA. Deranged.

Secret, but not anymore

These articles also claim that ACTA's secrecy—certainly one of its most obvious real flaws—was far more extreme than it actually was. "A handful of nations have defied the U.S. and published the latest draft of ACTA," wrote DailyTech. "ACTA is being carried out in secret through the use of executive orders, so in effect it isn’t available for public review, you can’t read it," wrote another author in a follow-up at the site pnosker.

Even a key Anonymous Twitter account, AnonyOps, reacted to our last article on Anonymous misinformation by writing, "Remember, #ACTA text was kept secret for years. This made knowing what it actually says almost impossible."

Almost impossible? The text was leaked routinely during negotiations. Ars wrote about the changing contents of the agreement for more than four years.

On April 21, 2010—nearly two years ago—the ACTA group officially released the consolidated draft text, which turned out to be quite close to the final version. (I still remember staying up until 3 am, waiting for the draft to be released in Europe in order to do a lengthy writeup on its contents.)

On November 15, 2010, the final ACTA text was released. All three versions are linked directly from the USTR's official ACTA page.

The process around ACTA was rotten, but those who claim today that the secrecy of it prevents them from accurately learning what's in it simply haven't bothered to look.

The ACTA Committee

ACTA sets up a new "ACTA Committee" (see Article 36). Sound scary? One EU group organizing an anti-ACTA petition thinks so. ACTA would "set up a shadowy new anti-counterfeiting body to allow private interests to police everything that we do online and impose massive penalties—even prison sentences—against people they say have harmed their business."

But the Committee is administrative. It oversees the agreement text, it coordinates between member states, and it decides if other countries are allowed to join. Setting up such a new group outside the existing multilateral systems in place at organizations like WIPO creates problems—but they are more boring "governance" type problems instead of "shadowy" police problems.

The ACTA Committee expressly disdains such an enforcement role. "For greater certainty, the Committee shall not oversee or supervise domestic or international enforcement or criminal investigations of specific intellectual property cases," the ACTA text says. This is not Interpol for P2P networks, though ACTA does envision more direct contacts between existing international police units.

And yet we're still seeing stuff like this: "Customs agents will sift through your iPod playlist for illegally downloaded music and through your laptop for illegally downloaded movies." It could happen for other reasons, of course, but not because ACTA demands it.

Sweet sanity

The obvious danger in all this is that complete fabrications might be used to fan the flames of anti-ACTA protest in Europe, where the issue has become hot, hot, hot the last two weeks. (Poland is already making it clear that ACTA might not survive a ratification vote.) But misinformation only makes it easy for ACTA supporters to marginalize the opposition as irrelevant fanatics.

Fortunately, most of the digital rights groups are putting out decent information on ACTA. (See information from the EFF and EDRI, for instance.)

ACTA is the highest-level international IP agreement ever signed, and as such will be used by countries like the US as the new standard when negotiating free trade agreements and other deals. It incorporates stronger measures for things like ex officio searches, under which the government actually seizes goods it believes to be counterfeit without first getting a rightsholder complaint. The secretive process was ridiculous—what confidential information was ever at stake? And the attempt to use such agreements to bind Congress into ever-tougher IP enforcement is simply leading an entire generation of young people to disdain copyrights as the copyright lobby overreaches.

But these issues aren't as sexy. Much better, if you want to get people in the streets, to call it "SOPA cranked up to 11" and depict ACTA as a mandate for Internet monitoring and site-blocking. As a short-term strategy, it's clear that this works, but it's not a long-term recipe for countering the actual systemic problems around digital copyrights—of which ACTA is merely the latest symptom.

The petition at whitehouse.gov to investigate Chris Dodd for bribery was rejected because "...However, consistent with the We the People Terms of Participation and our responses to similar petitions in the past, the White House declines to comment on this petition because it requests a specific law enforcement action."

Ars Technica says that "small quantities of goods of a non-commercial nature contained in travellers’ personal luggage" are allowed through customs. But how is a border agent supposed to know if what is on the ipod is for commercial or non-commercial nature. It sounds like it requires border agent first to make a determination that something is non-commercial first. If I bring in an .mp3 for the purpose of making copies and distributing it for money, that is a commercial purpose even if I have only one copy on my ipod.

Jason Mick seems to get sucked into this stuff. I posted a link on Dailytech to come read the Ars stuff, because the Dailytech article was just crazy. I have never seen him write anything quite this nuts before (and Mick has a history of sensationalism).

He makes it sound like ACTA is something new, when as you stated, it has been going on for over 4 years.

Michael Geist also writes rational thoughts about ACTA - if people would like to read additional rational thoughts about it, check out his blog at http://www.michaelgeist.ca/

The "populist" (as he puts it himself) Daily Tech writer mentioned has gone far beyond deranged a while ago already. His blind hatred for anything "Obama", "Democrat" or "Liberal" (among other things) is simply fascinating.

Is that the same guy who'd always post those weird quack science articles that made no sense but I guess stood up to the man or whatever it was? Its been forever since I checked the site out, but it was always good for a laugh seeing what crazy stuff they'd believe.

"It's not that bad" is an unacceptable stance. Nate, you and I both know what the text reads. We both know that there are a number of ambiguous statements within it that can (and most likely will) produce collateral damage.

Nate Anderson wrote:

However, as with most parts of ACTA, the language is extremely broad and certainly doesn't require anything like the doomsday scenarios envisioned above.

Right. "Doesn't require." But, that doesn't mean the text isn't suggestive to give sweeping controls to rights holders. In fact, now that I think about it, it DOES demand a 30-day response for seizure. There is no outline on when that clock begins, specifically, but the order of the text would state after the rights holder brings it to attention. I suppose you also support Chanel's seizures, too.

I don't know why a great site like AnandTech allows themselves to be associated with something like DailyTech - presumably to generate page views I guess. I just skip past anything that they post

One of the editors of Anandtech responded recently to a post in a hardware review complaining about the site's link with Dailytech with a statement that Anandtech is trying to figure out a way to distance or completely disassociate itself from Dailytech. The editor made clear they don't support Dailytech but it sounded like their hands are tied at the moment; he didn't say so but I'm assuming contracts are the reason why Dailytech has such a prominent space on Anandtech.

As the Anandtech editor pointed out, Dailytech was different when it started but over the years, it seems to have been taken over by zealots, be it politics, technology or climate science. Jason Mick is also the guy who writes the site's partisan Android and Apple coverage to the point where he will write flat out lies in his coverage yet has the delusion to label others who actually try to offer impartial coverage as "Apple partisans." It's sad. Zealots are all cut from the same clothes. They're blind to their own delusions and see nefarious conspiracies everywhere.

In the last few days, some parts of civil society have intensified their campaign against this agreement. As we have seen before, and despite the European Commission’s efforts to provide all the relevant facts, the action they take is based on misinformation, or possibly even worse, on willful misinterpretation of the content of the agreement. This is all the more striking given the fact that ACTA does not change existing EU rules in this area.In particular, comparisons are being made with draft legislation that was recently discussed, then withdrawn in the US Congress, and which differs very significantly from ACTA both in substance and the actual measures proposed……Presently, ACTA opponents are trying to press Members of the Parliament to take a position now against it before your Committee and the Parliament has had a chance to debate it and take a considered view of its merits. This is not the time to jump precipitously to a conclusion simply on the basis on the number of emails received or in response to organized attacks to websites, such as your own, notwithstanding the amount of media attention such action attracts.

Some of your "debunks" are also directly "debunked" by the lead ACTA investigator from the EU parliament that resigned from his post.

In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Kader Arif – a member of the European parliament's international trade group, who was the lead negotiator over Acta – said that despite talks over the agreement having begun in 2007, "the European parliament, which represents the rights of the people, had no access to this mandate, neither had it information of the position defended by the commission or the demands of the other parties to the agreement"....Asked what he thought European citizens should do, Mr Arif said: "Showing that there is interest and concern about this agreement is the best way of creating a real public debate, which was never possible until now because of the lack of transparency on this dossier. Especially if the timeframe is short, raising awareness of members of parliament will be crucial. And because Acta is a mixed agreement, it will have to be ratified both by the European parliament and by every member state of the union, so there is also an opportunity to organise debates at the national level."...That means, he says, that "at this stage one can only accept or reject the agreement – no change of the text is possible. If the right wing of the European parliament had not imposed such a tight calendar, the members of the European parliament could have drafted an interim report, which would have put conditionalities to the ratification of the agreement, by giving recommendations to the commission and member states on how to implement it. But this is no longer a feasible option.""The title of this agreement is misleading, because it's not only about counterfeiting, it's about the violation of intellectual property rights," he told the Guardian. "There is a major difference between these two concepts."Acta has triggered public protests in a number of European and other countries, as well as online attacks by the hacking collective Anonymous. The US, EU member states, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan and a number of other countries have signed it, although none has yet ratified it in national legislation.The agreement would create an international framework and set of standards for a voluntary legal regime to enforce intellectual property rights across national boundaries.Arif said one example illustrates this difference particularly well – the case of generic medicines. "Generic medicines are not counterfeited medicines; they are not the fake version of a drug; they are a generic version of a drug, produced either because the patent on the original drug has expired, or because a country has to put in place public health policies," he said.A number of countries such as India and African nations have sought to use generic versions of drugs for infections such as HIV, which has often been resisted by pharmaceutical companies. Under Acta, Arif fears such countries would not have the same freedom to determine their own actions."There are international agreements, such as the Trips agreement, which foresees this last possibility," he said. "They're particularly important for developing countries which cannot afford to pay for patented HIV drugs, for example."The problem with Acta is that, by focusing on the fight against violation of intellectual property rights in general, it treats a generic drug just as a counterfeited drug. This means the patent holder can stop the shipping of the drugs to a developing country, seize the cargo and even order the destruction of the drugs as a preventive measure."

...[/quote]Internet freedoms could also be under threat if Acta is ratified in its present form, he says. "The chapter on internet is particularly worrying as some experts consider it reintroduces the concept of liability of internet providers, which is clearly excluded in the European legislation." That could make ISPs, who provide internet access, liable for users' illicit file-sharing.Arif also expressed concern that there could be more intrusive checks at borders to fight counterfeiting."I see a great risk concerning checks at borders, and the agreement foresees criminal sanctions against people using counterfeited products as a commercial activity," he said."This is relevant for the trade of fake shoes or bags for example, but what about data downloaded from the internet? If a customs officer considers that you may set up a commercial activity just by having one movie or one song on your computer, which is true in theory, you could face criminal sanctions."I don't want people to have their laptops or MP3 players searched at borders, there needs to be a clearer distinction between normal citizens and counterfeiters which trade fake products as a commercial activity. Acta goes too far."[/quote]

do it. one thing you learn from republicans is never concede anything... if people think acta will get twins executed for 'stealing' each other's DNA, go with it... i would rather people be afraid of any further copyright law than stuck feeling sorry for the industry like they have been for so long. If ACTA got Obama impeached, maybe the next president would think twice about it.

Regarding the Secrecy: The main body of the agreement has been released to the public, the negotiation protocols that could be used to interpret certain parts of it and actually SPECIFY them are to this day exactly that, secret.

do it. one thing you learn from republicans is never concede anything... if people think acta will get twins executed for 'stealing' each other's DNA, go with it... i would rather people be afraid of any further copyright law than stuck feeling sorry for the industry like they have been for so long. If ACTA got Obama impeached, maybe the next president would think twice about it.

Valid points.

Though I understand that Ars wants this won fairly, "there will be a day when you will wish you had done a little evil to do a greater good." (Kingdom of Heaven)

This is not a battle we can afford to lose, even on merit of fair play. Some things are simply too important.

Debunking silly shit is all well and good, but that doesn't change the fact that ACTA smells the same way rotting flesh does. Saying, "well, at least the gash is not squirting pus" does not make the rotting flesh smell any better. Not to mention, it does not heal the wound.

I'm not sure what the lengthy quote from Arif is meant to prove. ACTA simply doesn't require nation to search MP3 players at the border. It allows for ISP safe harbors. Nations could choose to do all kinds of crazy things, but to say that "ACTA -requires- them to do so" isn't accurate for many of these cases.

I'm not sure what the lengthy quote from Arif is meant to prove. ACTA simply doesn't require nation to search MP3 players at the border. It allows for ISP safe harbors. Nations could choose to do all kinds of crazy things, but to say that "ACTA -requires- them to do so" isn't accurate for many of these cases.

I thought that's what Tim's piece was for?

A second one on the same subject within such a short period of time makes me feel that there's just a bit of pandering going on here.

How about we address the existing provisions as to why it still is horrible instead of concentrating on why "it's not as bad as some people think"?

But misinformation only makes it easy for ACTA supporters to marginalize the opposition as irrelevant fanatics.

Yes, because only industry representatives like the MPAA, RIAA, IFPI, MPA, BSA etc.. should be able to use misinformation and outright lies to push for or against legislation. These industry reps are getting what they deserve, fire being fought with fire. Had ACTA been transparent from the get go, brought forth through the proper channels, and up for public scrutiny and debate - we wouldn't be here now!

I'm not sure what the lengthy quote from Arif is meant to prove. ACTA simply doesn't require nation to search MP3 players at the border. It allows for ISP safe harbors. Nations could choose to do all kinds of crazy things, but to say that "ACTA -requires- them to do so" isn't accurate for many of these cases.

So are we supposed to argue only on what the agreement (despite being made deliberately ambiguous to be able to mean and include several things and the documents required to find out the actual meaning still not being available) EXACTLY SPECIFIES that will happen and not upon the possibilities that it leaves open? You know SOPA wasn't exactly that bad either if you had trust in both governments and industry bodies that they wouldn't "misuse" it...

No, I think Ars is being too generous. ACTA leaves HUGE amounts of enforcement wiggle room entirely up to the discretion of the member nations.

Article 2.2.2.x says "Parties may exclude from the application of this Section small quantities of goods of a non-commercial nature contained in travelers' personal luggage".

While it's nice that border guards are *not required* to search people's laptops and iphones for infringing content, on the flip side they clearly are *allowed* to do so if the member country chooses to enforce ACTA in that way.

Compare to the Patriot Act. "Oh my! I suppose if you read literally it says we can do all those horrible things without oversight, but surely our wonderful government would NEVER do that!"

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Some people seem to be confused about the difference between a treaty and a law. Broad/ambiguous language in a treaty mostly means it is toothless - a good thing if you don't like the content of the treaty. That is exactly the opposite of a law, where broad/ambiguous language is a recipe for all kinds of trouble.

When the author talks about what the treaty requires please remember that context. Nations still need to pass actual laws for anything more they want to do. The ambiguous language in the treaty in no way gives rights holders or law enforcement powers to do anything. What it does is give nations that don't feel like being dicks the ability to not be dicks.

Alternattiva Demokratika has rebutted a statement by the Finance Minister that ACTA will not censor websites and appealed for a private member's bill on the issue.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was created with the aim of establishing international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement, yet will deal with tools targeting internet distribution and information technology, meaning people could be prosecuted for merely sharing a link to a newspaper article or posting a video on YouTube.

ACTA encourages its signatory states to step up cooperation with private actors, like internet providers, for intellectual property enforcement in the absence of any minimum standards for legal procedures. This opens the door to undermining the basic rights of individuals with no protection for those affected, AD said.

AD's IT spokesman Henrik Piski said: "ACTA does not differentiate between individuals or large scale infringements as wrongly stated in the media. It will indeed impose on ISPs stronger content control and eventually lead to prosecution of individuals. This is already happening in France with the introduction of Hadopi law last year.

"It is absolutely surprising that the government had never engaged any public discussion and consultation about its intention of the signing of the agreement. It clearly indicates that the government is detached of the Internet reality and freedom of expression of its constituents."

In the meantime, AD announced its participation in the anti-ACTA protest which will be held in the coming days. AD invited members of parliament to stand up and be counted on the issue by presenting a private member's bill against ACTA, and appealed to MEPs to reject ACTA in the upcoming vote in June. AD confirmed its support of the Malta Anti-ACTA Group.

AD chairman Michael Briguglio said ACTA threatens to have perverse impacts such as infringement of the privacy of individuals and making generic drugs less accessible, all in the name of corporate greed.

Some people seem to be confused about the difference between a treaty and a law. Broad/ambiguous language in a treaty mostly means it is toothless - a good thing if you don't like the content of the treaty. That is exactly the opposite of a law, where broad/ambiguous language is a recipe for all kinds of trouble.

When the author talks about what the treaty requires please remember that context. Nations still need to pass actual laws for anything more they want to do. The ambiguous language in the treaty in no way gives rights holders or law enforcement powers to do anything. What it does is give nations that don't feel like being dicks the ability to not be dicks.

It also gives nations the ability to be dicks and blame it on a treaty. That's what the US did with the URAA, the DMCA, and the CTEA. In the case of the DMCA, we went above and beyond the requirements of the treaty, but still claimed that we needed to have it to implement a treaty. There's no sense in falling for the copyright ratchet again.

I'm not sure what the lengthy quote from Arif is meant to prove. ACTA simply doesn't require nation to search MP3 players at the border. It allows for ISP safe harbors. Nations could choose to do all kinds of crazy things, but to say that "ACTA -requires- them to do so" isn't accurate for many of these cases.

I thought that's what Tim's piece was for?

A second one on the same subject within such a short period of time makes me feel that there's just a bit of pandering going on here.

How about we address the existing provisions as to why it still is horrible instead of concentrating on why "it's not as bad as some people think"?

Maybe Nate could have been more concise, but what I got from this article (plus the previous one) is that ACTA should be rejected because of the way it is being proposed trying to bypass the congress, and not for what it says (or doesn't actually). The point is that pulling this kind of fast one is not acceptable even if the proposal was good.

And he did pointed out that it was stupidly secrect, but that calling it more secret that it was is stupid too; I see that as a complain for the fight not starting 2 years ago, not against fighting it now. I seems to me that he is pissed off that someone who didn't care for the past 4 years now comes and calls "wolf", distracting from the real problem.

So I guess my point isn't that it is already as bad as the "sky is falling". There were at least some non infringing sites seized in the first wave of DNS take overs. Then you have the US extraditing a British national to the US to stand trial for what is perfectly legal in his own country. Seems to me things are as bad as the rhetoric suggests. Maybe those wild ideas haven't happened yet, but they don't really seem any more wild that suggesting we would do any of the other things we have already done in the name of copyright protection.

I don't know why a great site like AnandTech allows themselves to be associated with something like DailyTech - presumably to generate page views I guess. I just skip past anything that they post

One of the editors of Anandtech responded recently to a post in a hardware review complaining about the site's link with Dailytech with a statement that Anandtech is trying to figure out a way to distance or completely disassociate itself from Dailytech. The editor made clear they don't support Dailytech but it sounded like their hands are tied at the moment; he didn't say so but I'm assuming contracts are the reason why Dailytech has such a prominent space on Anandtech.

As the Anandtech editor pointed out, Dailytech was different when it started but over the years, it seems to have been taken over by zealots, be it politics, technology or climate science. Jason Mick is also the guy who writes the site's partisan Android and Apple coverage to the point where he will write flat out lies in his coverage yet has the delusion to label others who actually try to offer impartial coverage as "Apple partisans." It's sad. Zealots are all cut from the same clothes. They're blind to their own delusions and see nefarious conspiracies everywhere.

I really hope what you are saying is true, DailyTech has had me on the verge of dropping Anandtech from my daily routine, its just difficult to read the site without the headlines on the side making my blood boil. I really didn't think it would get worse when Michael Asher left, but somehow they replaced him with more hardcore denialists and loonies.

DT really damages the credibility and reputation of AT in my opinion...